To think my normally sane DH is in danger of looking like a racist prick?

[FlamingoCrimbo]

DH just forwarded me an email that has been forwarded to him and to other people at his work by one of his colleagues.

I'm hoping he's not forwarded it to anyone except me - it doesn't look like he has.

It's one of those ones called 'border law'. Just found a US version here - swap the US references to UK ones.

DH is just misguided, IMO, sending this on - he ought to know I'd find it offensive. But it's made me wonder if IABU to find it offensive and to think it's probably been written by someone in the US equivalent of the BNP or at least widely distributed by BNP supporters.

So - AIBU and, if IANBU, how would you tackle it with him? He's very lovely, kind, and, sometimes, misguided so I don't want to upset him. I had to stop myself replying with 'you know this email makes you look like a racist prick, don't you' but that's not really very nice, or helpful!

Not sure we're exactly on the Titanic here, BadgersPaws?

"Not sure we're exactly on the Titanic here, BadgersPaws?"

Well given the amount of ice outside it sometimes feels like it.....

It's just a famous example of dealing with resources that do not meet the demand.

What Shrieking said

Not certain members, Harpy, the leaders, founders and principal members. If you join a party where the core and those running it are card carrying yet forced into the closet facists, you are saying something about yourself. Thats what a political party is all about. You can't argue that when you pick a party you agree with the heart of it, otherwise you have picked the wrong party.

They might advocate a democratic approach, but only for certain types of people. And again, their public policies can say what they like, they haven't changed underneath.

There's not a lot more I can say to you, Shrieking.

I don't publicly associate myself with a political party which has associations with Nazism. DP does. I have drawn no conclusions from this; I have merely commented on the validity of the conclusions drawn by other posters. I have not indicated agreement with those conclusions.

You acknowledge the shaky ground that the BNP's declarations of democracy are built on. The illusion of democracy veiling a totalitarian state is not a new one. To avoid endless discussion of Godwin's Law, Think of Mugabe's Zimbabwe. This is my feeling on the BNP, and why I do not choose to associate myself with them.

The Nazi comparisons remain valid. That's valid, not correct, so please do not accuse me of making those judgements, I just believe that posters who do should not automatically be discredited.

"It's just a famous example of dealing with resources that do not meet the demand."

Yes, thanks, BadgersPaws, I got that

My point is that it's an inaccurate one.

re Ethiopia - famine is almost without exception a political problem rather than a geographical one and we in the smug west are a part of that problem.

Exaggerated claims of a race for water or food are silly so are the claims that we cannot "afford" immigration. We do not have unlimited immigration in this country and though we (in my view) need to become more effective in enforcing our existing immigration policies, I would not want to live in a country which turns its back on people genuinely in need of a safe haven.

Personally I see no reason why illegal immigrants waiting for a determination on their leave to remain should not be entitled to work under some kind of licence.

Mind you I am a little biased as my child is one of those terrible immigrants (not illegal) who some of you think should have stayed where he was and been left to rot.

"My point is that it's an inaccurate one."

Why?

We do have limited resources.

Allowing unlimited access to those resources would not only deplete them for very little benefit but would remove our future ability to make more.

The ethical conclusion, restrictions, applies to both cases.

But there isn't unrestricted immigration, so I'm not sure of your point? that there should be restrictions? I don't see anyone saying there shouldn't be.....

if we are really talking here about allocation of scarce resources then personally I'd target it all at children - of any nationality.

If resources are really so scarce that we are in danger of dying (titanic example) then it makes no sense to apply them to any other than the youngest, the fittest of the adults being likely to survive anyway.

Not the most sensible way to govern a (civilised?) country in no imminent danger of self-combusting.

Why shouldn't we allow people from other countries to live here and possibly benefit from our taxes? Part of the reason we are a more advanced country now is because of what we took from other cultures. Zulus had an organised society with world-wide trade links until the british arrived and destroyed it.

pooexplosionsonthedustyro... "But there isn't unrestricted immigration, so I'm not sure of your point? that there should be restrictions? I don't see anyone saying there shouldn't be....."

There was a claim made that imposing restrictions was selfish and unjustifiable on moral grounds.

TheWorldFamousKewcumber "Why shouldn't we allow people from other countries to live here and possibly benefit from our taxes? Part of the reason we are a more advanced country now is because of what we took from other cultures."

Personally I believe that we should allow both asylum and immigration as well as assisting other nations with their problems.

However it does have to be managed, as indeed it is at the moment.

"Contravene it and face prosecution, which is hardly good publicity for any party" they are being prosecuted aren't they?

"Personally I believe that we should allow both asylum and immigration as well as assisting other nations with their problems."

Thats heartening for me to hear but I wasn't addressing my points specifically to you but to many on this thread (and in RL) who don't beleive we should accept either asylum seekers or legal immigrants (or at least any darker than beige)

Its neither a trick or a common insult if you are actually one though. Nick Griffin is a facist. You give him the doubt all you like, but I find his long history speaks for itself, as does his cronies.

but I thought there was also a case currently pending against them. Wasn't that the argument against letting them on Question Time?

Badgerspaws, other posters have answered your question as to why I feel the comparison is inaccurate- there are currently immigration restrictions in place, and we as a nation are not in danger of imminent doom.

The Titanic comparison sounds a little reactionary, alarmist and, frankly, paranoid.

Besides which, the Titanic had too few lifeboats as a result of cost-cutting on the part of White Star Liners. So maybe using it as an analogy in order to justify cost-cutting is, at best, slightly ironic.

Shrieking, thank you for taking my point, and I believe that's the first apology I've ever received on MN. I'm quite taken aback.

Badgers is normal and sensible.

I didn't say she wasn't, peacocks.

I said the Titanic comparison wasn't.

Not directed at you, Tethers, just a general observation.

It's all confused by the fact that on the one hand people say there isn't uncontrolled immigration, and they don't get anything anyway, so what's your problem, and on the other hand are saying it's our duty anyway to feed and medicate the whole world, possible because of our colonial obligation, possibly out of sheer altruism.

Even if the people who voted for the BNP claim to be not racist, or claim they didn't vote for them because of the racist aspects of their masnifesto, but other reasons can't make themselves free from the fact that they voted for a party with an openly racist manifesto.

It's a bit like old nazi apologists saying that Hitler built the motorway network and created jobs.

So anyone who votes BNP supports racists knowingly, it's more than just tolerating racism, it is helping racists into power.

Good post, WidowWadman.